well...briefly, b/c i have a TON of my own work to do...this might get you started...

you could argue that the P could "forsee" that by vigorously shaking a champagne bottle, the cork would fly out like a bullet. a reasonable person would assume that shaking a champagne bottle is not the smartest thing to do. on the other hand, while the P may have forseen that the champagne cork may have flewn off, it was NOT forseeable that two people would have been killed by a champagne cork. the reasonable person would not forsee a cork killing two people.

like i said..this is just a start. a real exam would require much more detail and more arguments. good luck!!

Exactly, your using the reasonable person theory is correct. Just like the person on the top post said, "negligence...negligence..negligence."

Wow, there are so many rules to muddle through. When I asked the Dean what would happen if I couldn't pass by the 3rd try, he said, he just looks over my record to see if I should continue the next years courses. He didn't even answer if I could take the 4th time. Oh well.

Look at me freaking out when I haven't even taken my 1st baby bar. I'll take it next year. I'm only in my 3rd week of law school and I'm already stressing out.